If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Inquirer)   One of Bill Gates' biggest regrets? That MS canned the WinFS file sharing system. Subby's biggest MS regret? Ever buying WinMe and Vista   (theinquirer.net) divider line 38
    More: Obvious, Bill Gates, WinFS, Windows ME, Microsoft, file sharing  
•       •       •

1815 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-12 10:42:22 AM
Get Windows 8. Then you can add to that regrets list.
 
2013-02-12 10:42:31 AM
Bob? Clippy? Though those seem more like face-palm moments, not flat-out regrets... But subby did nail it with WinME. Even more of a disaster than Vista.
 
2013-02-12 10:43:00 AM
brb, grabbing popcorn
 
2013-02-12 10:55:21 AM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Get Windows 8. Then you can add to that regrets list.


Higher is better.

/ In before threddit repetition
 
2013-02-12 10:55:38 AM
Wait - its not placing a talentless hack in charge who can't control the fiefdoms or build new revenue from products that aren't literally 30 years old?
 
hej
2013-02-12 10:55:49 AM
WinFS had nothing to do with "sharing."  It was to be a database based file system, similar to the BeOS file system.
 
2013-02-12 10:59:24 AM

RoxtarRyan: Bob? Clippy? Though those seem more like face-palm moments, not flat-out regrets... But subby did nail it with WinME. Even more of a disaster than Vista.


Windows: Every Other Version Just Works
 
2013-02-12 11:09:16 AM
I thought Bills biggest regret was Garfield.
 
2013-02-12 11:15:50 AM
Windows 8 is fine you hipster bastards.
 
2013-02-12 11:18:10 AM

Dr Dreidel: RoxtarRyan: Bob? Clippy? Though those seem more like face-palm moments, not flat-out regrets... But subby did nail it with WinME. Even more of a disaster than Vista.

Windows: Every Other Version Just Works


Having no issues with Win8. Actually, find it kind of easy to use on my laptop, but only because I have a touchscreen and WACOM stylus capabilities (convertible tablet, about 4 years old). For K/M combos... eh. Metro UI is a pain. Easy enough to make it look and act exactly like Win7 though, but with much faster boot-up times. Even still when in the "desktop" mode with multiple monitors, I do like how they made it so the task bar can stretch across both screens. I've spent $40 on far worse.
 
2013-02-12 11:19:29 AM
I read the Reddit AMA with him that Victoly linked to.

He's always seemed like a decent dude and that AMA seems true to form. It's an interesting read.
 
2013-02-12 11:25:54 AM
If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.
 
2013-02-12 11:27:37 AM
Sorry for the "frontend" and "to take a get" gibberish, the caffeine overdrive has kicked in and I'm jittery.
 
2013-02-12 11:30:32 AM

netweavr: Windows 8 is fine you hipster bastards.


No it's not, you buttoned-down shill.
 
2013-02-12 11:35:04 AM

theurge14: If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.


Yeah, WinFS was just too slow. It requires LOTS of extra reads/writes to the disk.

But now we have SSDs. In a few years, SSDs will likely be *standard* on most computers. And then the performance problems of WinFS magically disappear.

I fully expect WinFS to be part of Windows 10.
 
2013-02-12 11:50:37 AM

realmolo: theurge14: If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.

Yeah, WinFS was just too slow. It requires LOTS of extra reads/writes to the disk.

But now we have SSDs. In a few years, SSDs will likely be *standard* on most computers. And then the performance problems of WinFS magically disappear.


And then your SSD wears out twice or three times as fast because of all the extra and unnecessary writes being done to the disk.  The speed of a SSD would also make conventional indexing and searching that much faster, which would _also_ make something like WinFS unnecessary.
 
2013-02-12 12:54:06 PM

taliesinwi: realmolo: theurge14: If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.

Yeah, WinFS was just too slow. It requires LOTS of extra reads/writes to the disk.

But now we have SSDs. In a few years, SSDs will likely be *standard* on most computers. And then the performance problems of WinFS magically disappear.

And then your SSD wears out twice or three times as fast because of all the extra and unnecessary writes being done to the disk.  The speed of a SSD would also make conventional indexing and searching that much faster, which would _also_ make something like WinFS unnecessary.




No more closets full of hard drives. Yay!
 
2013-02-12 01:01:46 PM

taliesinwi: The speed of a SSD would also make conventional indexing and searching that much faster, which would _also_ make something like WinFS unnecessary.


You obviously have no idea of why someone would want to use a database.

1) Ability to scale to thousands or millions of objects.
2) Storage efficiency where say storing a 140 character text message doesn't take up 10k of disk space as a file.
3) Having a common sharable indexing scheme rather than each application having its own proprietary scheme and methods to pack and unpack data and search and alter the index..
 
2013-02-12 01:05:52 PM

realmolo: theurge14: If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.

Yeah, WinFS was just too slow. It requires LOTS of extra reads/writes to the disk.

But now we have SSDs. In a few years, SSDs will likely be *standard* on most computers. And then the performance problems of WinFS magically disappear.

I fully expect WinFS to be part of Windows 10.


realmolo: theurge14: If I recall correctly, WinFS was basically NTFS to store data with an SQL frontend to store information about the files.  So read/writes take a performance hit now so you later gain the ability to do a quick search of "display all emails from the last 100 days from Fred that have attachments", when reality has shown people prefer to take a get better performance with read/writes and the only performance hit is the one time you do the search.  It sounds like a developer pipe dream that died when reality of the implementation became clear to them.

If that's all Bill regrets then I think Bill has a pretty happy life.

Yeah, WinFS was just too slow. It requires LOTS of extra reads/writes to the disk.

But now we have SSDs. In a few years, SSDs will likely be *standard* on most computers. And then the performance problems of WinFS magically disappear.

I fully expect WinFS to be part of Windows 10.


The spec, sure.  They will have to pull it out to finish it, of course.  It was first mentioned publicly for Cairo (presumably NT3.?) in 1991 and often canceled and revived ever since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS (check the timeline).

Now that Apple is bored with the desktop, who is going to give them something to copy?
 
2013-02-12 01:29:33 PM
I still have yet to hear an explanation as to why WinFS was scrapped (multiple times).  There were rumblings that it would be in Win 7 but it was scrapped again.  It sounded revolutionary (for Windows)..and very cool.
 
2013-02-12 02:17:43 PM

HairBolus: taliesinwi: The speed of a SSD would also make conventional indexing and searching that much faster, which would _also_ make something like WinFS unnecessary.

You obviously have no idea of why someone would want to use a database.

1) Ability to scale to thousands or millions of objects.
2) Storage efficiency where say storing a 140 character text message doesn't take up 10k of disk space as a file.
3) Having a common sharable indexing scheme rather than each application having its own proprietary scheme and methods to pack and unpack data and search and alter the index..


I'm very aware of why "someone" would want to use a database.  How many files do you think the average person truly has (that don't end with .ini) that are smaller than the cluster size of the disk they're stored on?  Now, how many files do they have where the "index-able" part (for example, metadata) is a very minor fraction of the useable data (such as a mp3 or mp4 file)?  Wouldn't it be fair to say the concept of "it's all just data" really isn't appropriate anymore and thus paradigms that treat it as such are only marginally useful?
 
2013-02-12 02:28:10 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Get Windows 8. Then you can add to that regrets list.



As someone who just bought a brand new, sealed and in the box Windows Seven machine, I'm getting a kick.

/Yes, I was able to find one.

//The downside is that it's an EMachine.

///Who cares?
 
2013-02-12 02:36:12 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Get Windows 8. Then you can add to that regrets list.


Oh god my start menu changed but 90% of the desktop is still the same. This is a travesty and never mind it the OS is faster, fully supports 4k drives (the drives you can buy), booting from drives over 3TB, SSD full support, etc, etc.
 
2013-02-12 02:39:27 PM
Or

Why doesn't MTV play music videos anymore.
 
2013-02-12 02:46:56 PM
img837.imageshack.us

^ From the Reddit thread.
 
2013-02-12 02:47:54 PM

Intrepid00: Or

Why doesn't MTV play music videos anymore.


An unintentionally apt comparo, MTV doesn't play music videos anymore as Windows doesn't display separate windows anymore.
 
2013-02-12 03:02:46 PM
My timeline of Windows:
Win 98 SE
Win XP (then XP 64 bit)
Win 7 Pro

My wife got a computer that hipped with Vista, I hate doing anything on her machine.
 
2013-02-12 04:07:14 PM
Ah, WinME...

Updates one day and decides I no longer have a modem. Good times.
 
2013-02-12 05:25:02 PM

Superjew: netweavr: Windows 8 is fine you hipster bastards.

No it's not, you buttoned-down shill.


i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-12 05:36:51 PM
Vista works and worked fine. Windows * is also fine and not a problem

But then, I can afford the $30 needed for the extra RAM, and I don't have 10,000,000 million useless, poorly-written apps installed.
 
Slu
2013-02-12 07:14:47 PM

Victoly: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Get Windows 8. Then you can add to that regrets list.

Higher is better.

/ In before threddit repetition


Not that I had a negative impression of him before (I did not), but he comes off quite funny and sincere in that AMA,  He certainly went up a few notches in my book.
 
2013-02-12 07:34:43 PM
How about going a bit further back to MS-DOS 6.21? A version that exist solely to remove features from 6.2 because they lost a lawsuit. Features that were then rewritten, renamed, and added again in 6.22

And they actually had the nerve to release 6.21 in stores and SELL IT! They lost a lawsuit and they got customers to pay them money to take out features.
 
2013-02-12 08:50:17 PM

RoxtarRyan: Bob? Clippy? Though those seem more like face-palm moments, not flat-out regrets... But subby did nail it with WinME. Even more of a disaster than Vista.


Am I the only person that was fond of clippy?
 
2013-02-12 09:04:10 PM

Hacker_X: How about going a bit further back to MS-DOS 6.21? A version that exist solely to remove features from 6.2 because they lost a lawsuit. Features that were then rewritten, renamed, and added again in 6.22

And they actually had the nerve to release 6.21 in stores and SELL IT! They lost a lawsuit and they got customers to pay them money to take out features.


They were probably required to do so by the court.
 
2013-02-12 09:09:01 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Vista works and worked fine. Windows * is also fine and not a problem

But then, I can afford the $30 needed for the extra RAM, and I don't have 10,000,000 million useless, poorly-written apps installed.


I ran Vista on a late model PC with a dual core AMD CPU, 4GB RAM, large hard drive. The only software I had installed was SQL Server, Visual Studio, MS Office, Opera and I think AVG anti-virus. No games or any crapware. No file sharing apps.

It ran horribly, horribly, horribly slowly.

From what I understand whatever it was that was causing the performance problems has since been rectified with a service pack. I had uninstalled it and gone back to XP well before then.

Windows 8 on the other hand is swell.
 
2013-02-13 09:54:09 AM
Honestly, I never had problems with Vista. However, a few weeks back I needed an extra windows box, and Vista is the only version I have that would install on my macbook. fark me a plain windows Vista load comes with a lot of bullshiat running by default!
 
2013-02-14 02:39:45 AM

kg2095: Hacker_X: How about going a bit further back to MS-DOS 6.21? A version that exist solely to remove features from 6.2 because they lost a lawsuit. Features that were then rewritten, renamed, and added again in 6.22

And they actually had the nerve to release 6.21 in stores and SELL IT! They lost a lawsuit and they got customers to pay them money to take out features.

They were probably required to do so by the court.


Oh, I'm sure they were required to pull 6.2 from stores but I'll guarantee you that a court didn't order them to get their customers to pay for 6.21 with those features removed and then pay again for 6.22 to have them put pack in again. And back in those days (as with so many people today) people really would go out and get every new version with a higher version number.

I'm betting if the court had realized what MS had done and could find a way to do they they would have fined MS again just for violating the spirit of the order. The whole point was that they had profited illegally from somebody elses work and by getting customers to pay for them to remove said work they were in effect profiting from that work again AFTER the court had ordered them not to.

If AOL could carpet bomb the country with billions and billions of floppies MS could have sent out copies of 6.21 to all their customers. Or they could have just pulled 6.2 from stores and waited til 6.22 was ready and just called it 6.21.
 
2013-02-14 07:21:04 AM

Hacker_X: kg2095: Hacker_X: How about going a bit further back to MS-DOS 6.21? A version that exist solely to remove features from 6.2 because they lost a lawsuit. Features that were then rewritten, renamed, and added again in 6.22

And they actually had the nerve to release 6.21 in stores and SELL IT! They lost a lawsuit and they got customers to pay them money to take out features.

They were probably required to do so by the court.

Oh, I'm sure they were required to pull 6.2 from stores but I'll guarantee you that a court didn't order them to get their customers to pay for 6.21 with those features removed and then pay again for 6.22 to have them put pack in again. And back in those days (as with so many people today) people really would go out and get every new version with a higher version number.

I'm betting if the court had realized what MS had done and could find a way to do they they would have fined MS again just for violating the spirit of the order. The whole point was that they had profited illegally from somebody elses work and by getting customers to pay for them to remove said work they were in effect profiting from that work again AFTER the court had ordered them not to.

If AOL could carpet bomb the country with billions and billions of floppies MS could have sent out copies of 6.21 to all their customers. Or they could have just pulled 6.2 from stores and waited til 6.22 was ready and just called it 6.21.


I worked at Babbage's at the time this was all going down and I'm pretty sure my store didn't sell a single copy of the 6.21 "upgrade".  We had it right at the counter as an impulse purchase (required to do so by corporate) but the instant anyone touched it we'd ask them if they had 6.2 or not, and take them through the "it's actively removing a feature you have/well 6 is a decent upgrade from 5, but wait for 6.22 to come out" thing.  They always seemed a bit surprised we were actively talking them out of giving us money, and it was only $10, but we actually had souls.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report